The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair), pursuant to Standing Order 11.
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Display of Lilies in Parliament Buildings

Ms Jane Morrice: The Business Committee has allocated two hours for the debate on the motion concerning the display of lilies in Parliament Buildings. A valid petition of concern in respect of the motion was tabled before the Business Office closed yesterday. Having checked the petition, I regard it as fulfilling the requirements of Standing Order 27. Any vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis. Members wishing to inspect this or any future petition of concern may obtain copies from the Business Office.

Mr John Dallat: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to list the names on the petition of concern?

Ms Jane Morrice: I have told the Assembly that copies of the petition are available in the Business Office.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I presume that the motion was accepted under Standing Order 11(1), which indicates that earlier meetings of the Assembly may be called for specific matters of urgent public importance. Clearly, someone accepted the motion about lilies or flowers in the Great Hall of this Building as a matter of urgent public importance.
Will you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you accepted the motion under the terms of Standing Orders? It may be appropriate to explain why the display of flowers in the Great Hall is a matter of urgent public importance. Why is the matter distinct from the many crises in previous recesses, such as the blizzards and storms over Christmas, in respect of which no motions were put down?

Ms Jane Morrice: The motion falls under Standing Order 11(1), which refers to
"a … matter of urgent public importance."
Thirty Members signed the motion that called for this early meeting. Thus, an adequate percentage of Members demonstrated a sense of urgency sufficient for the motion to satisfy the requirement of Standing Orders. That is not a matter of judgement for the Speaker; the requirement of Standing Order 11 is for 30 signatures, and that requirement has been met.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are two requirements under Standing Order 11(1). First, the First and Deputy First Ministers can summon a meeting, or 30 Members can sign a petition to summon a meeting, as you rightly say. The second qualification for a valid motion is the purpose of the meeting. That second qualification clearly states that a debate can be held
"for the purpose of discussing a specific matter of urgent public importance."
A layman would not think that this is a matter of urgent public importance. Therefore the motion is invalid.

Mr John Kelly: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the criterion for an emergency debate — and God knows that there are many emergencies out there waiting to be debated — not the 30 signatures but whether there is an emergency? The Democratic Unionist Party has tabled this motion for purely sectarian, political reasons.

Mr Peter Weir: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the matter is of such urgent public concern that the Members opposite have signed a petition of concern?

Ms Jane Morrice: A total of 30 Members signed the motion — a significant percentage of the Assembly — and they see the matter as one of urgent public importance.

Mr Jim Wells: I beg to move
That this Assembly instructs the Assembly Commission to rescind its decision to display lilies in Parliament Buildings during the Easter Recess and deprecates the abuse of the voting system which brought about the original decision.
I do so in the names of the 30 Members (including myself) who signed the requisition for an emergency sitting. I thank those from a wide spectrum of Unionist opinion who took the time on Friday to come to Parliament Buildings for that purpose. Some went out of their way, and that is appreciated.
Two important points have been raised about the calling of the debate. Some Members say that the holding of a special meeting of the Assembly is a waste of time and money. I would have preferred the matter to be dealt with by the Assembly Commission. For that reason, Rev Robert Coulter and I called a special meeting of the Commision at 11.00 am on Friday. Although the Speaker, myself and MrCoulter were available for a meeting, the representatives of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance refused to turn up. As a result, there was no quorum —

Mrs Eileen Bell: Will the Member give way?

Mr Jim Wells: I will not give way.
There was no quorum — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mrs Eileen Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was available for the meeting at 11 o’clock but not for the one o’clock meeting. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member has indicated that she wants to make a point of order. I have been unable to hear what the point of order is.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Mr Wells said that I was not available for the 11.00 am meeting. I was available. However, I was not available for the 1.00 pm meeting. It is on the record. Rev Robert Coulter was not — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Mr Jim Wells: It is interesting that Mrs Bell has confirmed that she was available but decided not to attend the meeting, thus ensuring that there was no quorum to enable the Assembly Commission to rescind its decision. Mrs Bell, Mr Fee and the other representatives knew that had that meeting been held, MrCoulter and I, with 52 votes between us, would have been able to ensure that the decision was rescinded. So there was absolutely no — [Interruption]

Mr John Fee: My understanding is that if I am named, I have an immediate opportunity to respond. For the purposes of this debate, we might as well start with facts, because — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. A Member who is named and/or criticised has a right to respond at the end of the debate.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 60 indicates how good order is to be maintained in the Chamber. Paragraph (1)(a) states that when a Member "wilfully obstructs" a debate in the Chamber it is up to the Speaker to take action. It is clear that a number of Members from the Nationalist and Alliance Benches are trying to make — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: May I make the point of order?

Ms Jane Morrice: I have taken the point of order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: You cannot have taken the point of order for I have not made it.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Please resume your seat. I have taken the Member’s advice, and I will ensure that order is maintained on all Benches.

Mr Jim Wells: I made it clear that if 11.00 am was inconvenient, the meeting could be held at 5.00 pm, 7.00 pm, midnight — at any time on Friday, in fact. We are here today because those members of the Commission who boycotted that meeting would not allow the democratic will of the Assembly to be exerted. They could do the arithmetic and they knew that RevRobertCoulter and I between us had the majority of the votes of the Assembly, allocated to us for the purposes of that vote.
It is amazing how many Members have been on radio condemning what they consider to be a trivial matter. Mr McGrady, Mr Close and Mrs Bell have been tripping over themselves to go on radio to comment on something that they consider trivial. Methinks they do protest too much.
Members have referred to the calling of this emergency meeting of the Assembly while there was no such emergency meeting after Omagh. After the Omagh bombing the DUP and others called for an emergency debate, but we were not allowed to have one by the Secretary of State. So let us nail that lie.
The fundamental decision that we will make today is whether this Building, the home of the Northern Ireland Assembly, should be used for a floral display dedicated to the memory of the terrorists who have tortured this community for 30 years. Let us be absolutely clear: this is not simply about a floral display representing the Irishness felt by some Members of the Assembly. If they wanted that Irishness represented, they could have used shamrock. Through the Assembly Commission, Sinn Féin has made it clear that this was to honour the memory of the 300 IRA "volunteers" who have died in action since 1968. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr David Ervine: Let me set the record straight. The decision that precipitated this special debate was not put forward by Sinn Féin. It was a compromise decision.

Mr Jim Wells: The Unionists of East Belfast will note once again that Mr Ervine has leapt to the defence of Sinn Féin/IRA. Go to the people of Dee Street and try to explain — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member will speak through the Chair.

Mr Jim Wells: Through the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I tell Mr Ervine to go to the people of Dee Street and the shipyard and explain his actions. Not only did he vote for this; he was on his feet immediately to defend Sinn Féin/IRA.
For the first time in the history of the United Kingdom, a Government building will be used to display symbols that honour IRA terrorists. Many people find that an absolute disgrace. The Sinn Féin representative on the Assembly Commission who proposed that lilies should be permitted in Parliament Buildings objected to the sale of poppies in this very building. It was her view that if poppies could be sold, then so should Easter lilies. The money collected would be given to the National Graves Association (NGA), which is purported to maintain the graves and memorials of those who have, in its words, died in the cause of Irish freedom. As Members will note, that is an attempt to peddle the lie that there is equivalence between the poppy and the lily. It is disgraceful that the Assembly Commission has endorsed the view — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Jim Wells: It is disgraceful that the Assembly Commission has endorsed the view that there can be any equivalence between those who died in trenches defending this country from anarchy and Nazism and those who died in ditches having been killed by their own bombs as they waited to murder members of the security forces. The poppy is sold by the Royal British Legion to provide support and care for the many veterans, both Protestant and Catholic, who served in the two world wars. The lily is an IRA symbol sold to maintain memorials to dead IRA terrorists. It is an insult to the dead of two world wars to attempt to draw any comparison between the poppy and the lily.
The Easter lily became the symbol of remembrance for those who have engaged in terrorist activities since 1926. It was adopted by the Republican women’s organisation. When the IRA split in 1970 both the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA continued to use the Easter lily in separate commemorations. Official IRA members wore a lily with a self-adhesive backing and became known as "Stickies", while Provisional IRA supporters secured their lilies to their lapels with traditional pins.
Easter lilies are sold solely on behalf of the National Graves Association. The Easter lily has no other symbolism or use. The NGA, founded in 1898, has three main aims. I quote from its constitution:
"To restore and maintain the graves of the patriot dead of every generation; to commemorate those who have died in the cause of Irish freedom; and to compile a record of graves and memorials."
The NGA has never deviated from its guiding principle that only a 32-county Irish Republic represents the true aspiration of those who gave their lives for Irish freedom. That is what the lilies are being sold in aid of.
The NGA claims to be a non-political organisation. That is interesting. In January 2000 the NGA proclaimed that it had succeeded in having the remains of Tom Williams released from Crumlin Road Prison. Leading IRA activists such as Joe Cahill and Mr Adams, along with Liam Shannon from the NGA, carried the coffin of Mr Williams to Milltown Cemetery. Why was Mr Williams executed in 1942? He was executed for the murder of a Roman Catholic RUC officer, Patrick Murphy, whose death left eight children without a father. That is the so-called work of the NGA. Over the last three years it has supported the erection of a memorial in Dunleath Park in Downpatrick in honour of IRA activist Colm Marks. Why did Colm Marks die? He was shot by the Army as he attempted to launch a mortar bomb into Downpatrick RUC Station.
I notice that Mr McGrady is no longer with us, but it would be very interesting to know if he supports the work of the NGA in Downpatrick. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Jim Wells: And I have no doubt that the NGA has plans to unveil a memorial to Thomas Begley, the Shankill bomber.
Did Mrs Bell know any of that before she supported the unveiling of lilies in the Assembly? Did she know the association? We are not talking about flower arranging; we are talking about emblems that honour dead terrorists.
When the Assembly Commission decided to check up on the NGA, it discovered some interesting facts. The NGA does not have a phone number; it is not a registered charity; it does not submit tax returns; and it failed to respond to several letters from the Commission. At best, it is a group of deluded Nationalists who collect money to commemorate dead terrorists. More likely, it is a front for more sinister activities. That is what the Easter lily represents.
The second part of the motion deprecates the abuse of the electoral system that allowed the decision to be taken in the first place. No Unionist with all the facts about the use of the Easter lily and the work of the NGA would ever have voted for the display of the lilies in the House. Votes were cast on behalf of one group that — and proof of this assertion will be produced later — had made it clear that under no circumstances was Mrs Bell or any Alliance Party representative permitted to cast votes in the Commission on its behalf.
Another Member was totally unaware that the decision was being made and would not have consented to it. A third group was not properly consulted and, once it was made aware of what was proposed, immediately withdrew its consent and issued a press release denouncing the decision.
Once the full information was in the public domain, and all the Unionists in the House knew what was going on, to a man they united to oppose the decision. That is why they did not permit a second meeting of the Assembly Commission; they knew that democracy would prevail and the decision would be overturned. Many in the House — and outside — will be watching with interest what is going on in the Assembly.
The original decision set democracy on its head. The second meeting resulted in the stymying of democracy, because a quorum could not be obtained. It is clear that a majority of the House will vote against the disgraceful display of lilies in the Great Hall, but the motion will be stymied through the use of the petition of concern. So much for democracy. So much for taking into account the feelings of ordinary grassroots Unionists in this country.
Does the Commission propose to continue with the decision and railroad it through without the consent of the Assembly? If it intends to do that, then it sets a dangerous precedent.
I had the privilege of representing South Down in the Assembly between 1982 and 1986. During that time I had the sad duty of attending the funerals of 13 members of the security forces who had been brutally murdered by the IRA. At one of those funerals, there was so little left of a policeman’s body that concrete blocks had to be put in the coffin to convince his wife that there was a body. There was no body. He was blown into a thousand pieces.
The Assembly is debating a motion about a decision that will allow the Great Hall to be used to honour those who committed those foul deeds. The majority of ordinary decent people in the Province will never accept that decision.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the number of Members wishing to participate in the debate and the time allocated by the Business Committee, I ask all to limit their contributions to less than five minutes.

Rev Robert Coulter: I support the motion. Mr Wells has covered the ground very well, but there are questions that need to be asked. We must decide whether the importance of the Easter lily can be equated to that of the poppy. I, for one, cannot. I see the poppy as a national symbol.
One of the most moving moments of my life was when I walked over the field at Thiepval Wood at 7.00am on 1July some years ago and tried to imagine that morning many years before when so many young men lay dead before breakfast time. Can I look upon their courage and sacrifice in the same way as I look upon those who lie behind hedges, trigger bombs, destroy lives and creep away again, some of whom were caught and are now to be remembered by the lily? To be honest, I cannot. The poppy symbolises something far beyond that which is so partisan and so sectarian. That raises a question in my mind — should the House be used for the display of partisan symbols?
Members have agreed that the flax flower should be a neutral symbol which we can all adhere to and support. Why then are we debating an issue that turns the House into a vehicle for the display of partisan symbols? If this goes through, the next request, undoubtedly, will be for a display of orange lilies around 12July. That raises another question — what was really behind the bringing of this matter to the Commission at this time? Is it that SinnFéin is following a policy of cultural aggravation? Is it that there is a policy of provocation, knowing that Unionists will react in a predictable way? Sadly, the end product is that SinnFéin has succeeded in dividing the Assembly on sectarian grounds. That is a tragedy when we have all worked and tried in the Committees and elsewhere to make progress. I say again that this is a tragedy. There will be no winners in today’s debate, and the biggest loser will be democracy.
I plead with Sinn Féin to consider its policy of cultural aggravation. If it begins to hype cultural aggravation we will be back again to the killing fields and to the divisions that plagued the Province for so many years. Today is a sad day for the Assembly. Many people are suffering in the community. Their hurt is still real, and their pain is still great. We need to think about what we are doing when we raise such controversial matters in the Commission. We need to think about what we are doing to those who expect us to make progress with peace and reconciliation. There is no way in which a matter such as this — and I am not talking about the motion before the House today, but about the request to have a partisan symbol in the House — can help peace and reconciliation. The demands of peace and reconciliation cannot be satisfied if we pursue this pathway.

Mr Alban Maginness: People outside the Chamber are wondering what sort of lunacy has descended upon the Assembly that it has to be urgently reconvened over a bowl of lilies. [Interruption]
11.00 am
That is the reaction in the street — whether Members like it or not. The proposer of this motion has done a great disservice to the House. He has made it look foolish. He has made the House look as if it does not concern itself with taxpayers’ money or with serious issues of politics in our society. That is the reality of the situation. People outside this Chamber are wondering if we are sane in coming back here to discuss such a subject. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Alban Maginness: Those responsible are, of course, the DUP. Why? It’s purpose is naked electioneering. It has reconvened the House to promote its election campaigns throughout Northern Ireland. Let us recognise that today, and let us see it for what it is — an abuse of the House.
The substance of the issue is that the Assembly Commission has made a reasoned, fair and balanced decision. We should recognise that. This was a compromise worked out over a series of meetings. Members can see that for themselves — the outline, timetable and minutes of those meetings are available. The Commission worked very hard indeed to reach a consensus on the issue. A fair decision was made, one which could not be challenged, and which, I believe would stand up to serious scrutiny on independent examination. The Commission recognised the problems and the fact that symbols in our society are divisive, but sought to reach an accommodation which would satisfy everybody.
The motion, which was accepted by the Commission, provided that over the Easter period two floral displays in the Great Hall would be replaced by lilies. There was no mention of the National Graves Association, collection of money, terrorism or of any of the things which Mr Wells has brought to the attention of the House today. This was, in effect, an inoffensive motion. The Members on the DUP Benches take offence, but everyone can see that it is simulated — imaginary rather than real. The reality is that the Commission, in its wisdom — a Commission that is delicately balanced and has made fair decisions since its inception — has worked fairly in this instance, as in others.
We need to recognise that there are many political symbols in our deeply divided society. The Commission’s decision is an attempt to do that. It cannot operate effectively if its delicate and unique decision-making process is to be challenged in this manner by parties who do not get their way. The DUP did not get their way, so they are kicking up a row in the House.
We need to work toward the acceptance of one another’s symbols. We must accept complete neutrality, equivalence or parity of esteem, or we must work towards the creation of consensual symbols. The SDLP would support that.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to set the record straight concerning the recall of the Assembly to discuss this issue.
There are issues out there such as foot-and-mouth disease; the sectarian attacks in Glengormley and north Belfast which left one man dead; the needs of people who are living in poverty; a crisis in the Health Service — and what do the DUP Members do? They bring us back to talk about a floral display of Easter lilies at Stormont. That shows where the DUP Members’ priorities lie. They have nothing constructive to offer but the old, failed politics of the past.
I want to set the record straight on some of the actual details. It has been said by other parties and by the media that this has been brought forward as an election issue. If people care to look on the Internet or at the records of the Commission they will see that this has been an issue since November. As Mr Coulter correctly stated, it arose at the same time as the issue of poppies. My view was that in the interests of parity of esteem and equality, similar provision should be made — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Similar provision should be made for Easter lilies as a recognition that every single tradition on this island — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Every tradition and community on this island is entitled to equal recognition and validity. It has also been stated in sections of the media that there was an acrimonious debate within the Commission on the issue. At no time was there any acrimony over this issue. The matter was debated by the Commission at various times; people put forward their points of view, and they were listened to. The Commission reached its decision in a cool, clear and level-headed manner. There was no abuse of the voting system. The DUP know as well as anyone that every Commisssion Member carries a weighted vote. This is a failure on the part of the DUP to accept the Commission’s decision and the principles of equality and parity of esteem.
Regarding the contribution from the DUP Member Jim Wells — who is supposedly from a Christian background — there were a lot of lies in what he had to say, and I would like to refute them. First — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a Member of this House who was ejected for using less robust language, I demand that you ask the Member to withdraw or exact the same punishment. Put her out.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. It is unparliamentary for a Member, in referring to another Member, to use the word "lies". I ask her to withdraw that word.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I shall withdraw that particular word and use — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I have asked the Member to withdraw the word; other Members should give her time to do so.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I withdraw that particular word, but I want to point out that what Jim Wells said was inaccurate. First, he said that the National Graves Association failed to contact the Commmission. On 2 March this year the Clerk to the Commmission held a meeting with the National Graves Association to discuss the issue. Therefore that was inaccurate.
I want to turn to the issue of the symbolism of the lily. The Easter lily represents the 1916 rising. It represents those men and women who died fighting for Irish freedom. It is a cherished symbol in the Republican and Nationalist tradition.

Mr Oliver Gibson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It appears that the clock is not working.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Member for pointing that out. It was turned off at the last point of order. We will correct it.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: The Easter lily represents all those men and women who died for Irish freedom. I am not expecting any Unionist to fully embrace what I and Irish Nationalists believe in. However, as an Irish Nationalist and an Irish Republican who sits in this House, who is elected by a constituency, who represents people and who is part of a community on this island, my views and traditions are entitled to equal validity. I do not expect Unionists to agree with that, but I do expect them to allow me to choose the symbol that I want to represent me. I do not want them to tell me what symbols should represent me.
We are coming out of nearly 30years of conflict and have a history of conflict on this island. There should be no hierarchy of victimhood. Every person who died in that conflict is entitled to equal respect. That includes people who come from my tradition.
I am disappointed in the lack of generosity from Unionism, not only from the DUP but also the Ulster Unionist Party. The Ulster Unionist Party in particular signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, which enshrines equality and parity of esteem. Unfortunately, yet again, Unionism has failed to show generosity to Irish Nationalism and has shown that it is unable to live on an equal basis with Irish Nationalists on this island. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sean Neeson: Like many people, I believe that the recall of the Assembly is undoubtedly a blatant abuse of the Assembly Rules. I am particularly disappointed with JimWells for bringing this forward, because he is someone I have known for many years and hold in respect. I had set this week aside, like many other Members, to catch up on constituency work. That is what we have been elected to do — [Interruption] It is no holiday.
Easter lilies, to me, are a strong reminder of the most important date in the Christian calendar. I do not associate them with Republicanism. Republicans may have hijacked them, but I associate Easter lilies with the supreme sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and his rising from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Easter lilies have adorned Christian churches — both Protestant and Catholic — for many years throughout Northern Ireland at Easter. As someone of the Christian faith, I deplore the DUP’s attempt to demean the Easter lily for electoral purposes. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member has a right to be heard.

Mr Sean Neeson: The DUP’s action verges on sacrilege. It is said that a thing of beauty is a joy for ever. The lily is a beautiful flower. That is why I have grown orange lilies in my garden over the years. At present I am growing yellow lilies — I wonder what connotation is now going to be put on that.
We realise the sensitivity of this issue. MrsBell has been charged to represent the non-Executive parties on the Commission. She tried to contact all the other non- Executive parties. She was able to make contact with the UUAP, the Women’s Coalition and the PUP, and she attempted to contact MrMcCartney.
The NIUP, however, decided some time ago that it did not want to be represented on the Commission by anybody. For the NIUP to come out now and criticise the decision that was taken, when it shied away from being represented on the Commission, is blatant hypocrisy. It is unforgivable.
In relation to the issue of symbols, there was no attempt to equate the display of poppies with the display of Easter lilies. We all recognise that poppies are an international symbol of those who made the supreme sacrifice in the various world war conflicts. On this issue, and other issues, Eileen Bell, metaphorically speaking, has more balls than the proposer and those who have supported him here today. These people are nihilists, for the only word in their vocabulary is "no". That is what we are getting here — "no" to a democratic decision that was made by — [Interruption]

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the past when a person has used language deemed not to be suitable for a public place, and particularly for the Assembly, the Speaker has brought it to the attention of the individual concerned and advised him or her to refrain from using such language. Even though the Member in this case is your Colleague, perhaps you should do so.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank Mr Wilson for the point of order. I will consider the matter and issue a response to him.

Mr Sean Neeson: Clearly, the truth hurts.
The fact is that the DUP, along with the others — and the spinelessness of the Ulster Unionists must be highlighted as well — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr Sean Neeson: Clearly, the truth hurts, and that is the truth. The DUP is here today to overturn democracy in the Assembly. I will be voting against the motion.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Mr Neeson’s speech I clearly heard Mr Wells say that Mrs Bell had stolen their votes. It appears to me that an allegation of theft is an allegation that would be regarded as unparliamentary in other places. I ask you to rule on it.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for that point of order.

Mr Jim Wells: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand over that allegation. The minutes of the Assembly Commission show that Mrs Bell had 16 votes on every occasion. Those votes included the three votes of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party that had made it clear that it did not want her to vote on its behalf.

Mrs Eileen Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Mr Wells was reading from the draft minutes, perhaps it would have been better to have read from the beginning of them. In relation to our putting the original suggestion they state
"Rev Coulter and Mr Wells stated that they would not be supporting either proposal. Mrs Bell advised of her meeting with representatives from the Alliance, NIWC, PUP and UUAP Parties when it was agreed that she should present the following amendment".
I must say that, and I will comment on it later.

Ms Jane Morrice: I have been asked to rule on a number of points of order. On the point raised by Mr Ford and confirmed by Mr Wells, I am assuming that it was a figure of speech that was used. However, I will look at Hansard and give the matter consideration.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I am sad that the debate is rapidly turning into a farce due to the behaviour of some Members and the language of others. It is, of course, the wish of our opponents on the other side of the House that that should be the case, because they want to trivialise a debate on an issue that is of grave concern. The Easter lily to be displayed in the foyer of this Building is quite clearly a symbol of terror. No attempt by anyone, including Mrs Bell, to equate it to, for instance, the poppy, will diminish the view of the people of Northern Ireland who are aware of the history of the Easter lily.
Mr Alban Maginness of the SDLP said that this debate has been brought about because of some nonsense on this side of the Floor. The history of this debate goes back to when Mr Alban Maginness’s party decided to enter into an unholy alliance with the Sinn Féin/IRA movement. While he chides this side of the House for being afraid to deal with issues, we have witnessed over the last number of weeks and months, and no doubt will continue to witness through the run-up to the election, the SDLP being led by the nose by Sinn Féin on serious, major issues such as policing, decommissioning and now terrorist symbols.
The SDLP is not able to stand against SinnFéin simply because it is slightly concerned about its electoral support. It thinks that playing to the gallery and to the nationalist community is likely to gain it a few additional votes and stop the meltdown of the SDLP. It will engage in whatever tricks, and go through whatever hoops, the Sinn Féin/ IRA movement presents it with.
This matter could not have been brought to the Commission, and it would not have come onto the Floor of the Chamber had it not been for the antics of Mr Maginness and, indeed, Mrs Bell of the Alliance Party. She brought forward what she termed a "compromise", but the end result was the same — the display of an offensive symbol of terror in the Foyer of this public Building.
With regard to Mrs Bell’s role in this, there was a misappropriation of votes, as it is quite clearly recorded in the Commission’s minutes that both Bob McCartney’s vote —

Mr Alban Maginness: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the comments made by Mr Wells, is it in order for a Member to suggest, or to say that votes were misappropriated by Mrs Bell? It is absolutely unacceptable, in parliamentary terms, to suggest that.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The clock continued running while the point of order was made.

Ms Jane Morrice: We will stop the clock for the point of order.
The minutes of the Commission meeting are available and they should not be referred to on the Floor of the House. They are a matter for the Commission, not for the Assembly.

Mr Cedric Wilson: There are two aspects to Mrs Bell’s hand in this. The first issue is the misappropriation of the United Kingdom Unionist Party’s vote and my party’s vote. Quite clearly, she would not have had the support of either of those parties.
Also, it was the foolishness of some of those who represent the Unionist community on the Commission that allowed this to go through. They gave Mrs Bell the authority to claim that she had the majority vote necessary to support the motion.
Finally, we have in this Chamber today Ulster Unionists and others who rushed to sign the petition because of the publicity that they were likely to get from it by showing how staunch they were in opposing all aspects of Sinn Féin/IRA terror and all of their symbols.
There is another motion in the Business Office which calls for the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive and from the Assembly. The sad fact is that they have not rushed to support that motion. What we are witnessing in the Hall is a manifestation of the cancer that is within the body politic in Northern Ireland — terrorists in government. Is it any surprise? What did DavidTrimble and the Ulster Unionists expect when they signed up to the Belfast Agreement? They signed up to give these people the right to come into these institutions and to propagate their beliefs and to bring these symbols of terror into Parliament Buildings.
You cannot play with terrorists. You cannot allow those who are inextricably linked to terrorism to come into government and then expect them to behave in a house-trained, proper and orderly democratic fashion. My appeal to the Ulster Unionist party and to the Democratic Unionist Party is that if they cannot remove terrorists from government then they should remove themselves from the institutions of government. It is playing about with those institutions —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for Members to refer to other Members as not being house-trained? I ask that you take a ruling on that and ask the Member to withdraw the remarks.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. There have been a number of requests for me to look into the use of language, and I will give the matter consideration.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I still have half a minute left. The clock did not stop when the point of order was made.

Ms Jane Morrice: Out of order. The time is up. I will move on to —

Mr Cedric Wilson: I have to challenge that. I want to ask if the timekeepers can —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. You have no right to challenge a ruling of the Speaker.

Mr David Ervine: I am conscious that we are here on what people describe as an emergency — an issue of grave concern to the community. Has anyone noticed the sombre tone of those who brought this emergency to the Chamber? Has anyone noticed their dismay? Rather has anyone noticed their glee and excitement? It seems that we may be here for a foolish and unreasonable cause, the furtherance of individual hopes and dreams for the election.
Some things should be clarified, although five minutes, unfortunately, is not a lot of time. We have already heard that this issue has been before the Commission since November. We were nearly at Easter, and no decision had been made. My understanding is that a proposal by Sinn Féin concerned the free availability, or the sale, of Easter lilies to prove equivalence with the poppy. Another proposal was for a bunch of flowers and a card to explain what the Easter lily is. Neither of those, I believed, was acceptable. A group of people then tried to do what politics is supposed to do — to reach some formula that would get us beyond the difficulties that epitomise this divided society. What was advocated was that there would be two flower arrangements containing — but not necessarily solely comprising — Easter lilies. There would be no explanation of the Easter lily. In many ways, since the House was to have been in recess, one might argue that it was a very minimalist response to what was originally requested. It achieved enough support to be successful.
There are those who would like the Easter lily to be treated as equivalent to the poppy, and they are matched by those who foolishly allow them to do exactly that. They should not be mentioned in the same book, never mind in the same sentence. The actions of the DUP, followed on hands and knees behind by the UUP, enable Republicans to see this issue thrown into abeyance again, to be argued over again and again, whether we like it or not. As a Unionist, I have no particular desire to appreciate or venerate the Republican dead — some of my colleagues and I might like to have added to their ranks. As members of the DUP slid about the "Armagh desert" with rolled- up manifestos determined to destroy the Republican movement, there were those of us who tried to do exactly that, more efficiently. I am sorry to say that we did not have as much success as I would like to have been able to report. However — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr John Kelly: I appreciate Mr Ervine’s dilemma, but is it appropriate for him to rattle on about wanting to murder more Catholics or more Nationalists?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Will Mr Ervine please clarify his remarks.

Mr David Ervine: I do not believe that I need to clarify my remarks. I have not used unparliamentary language.
Those who venerate the Republican dead will do so whether I like it or not. My experience of this society — as perhaps we are about to see on the lower Ormeau Road, when Republicans try to stop a people from expressing its culture — is that when you try to stop something, the problem does not go away. It gets worse.
The motion that was put forward was an attempt to reach a compromise wherein some people would accept that that was an appreciation for them and a veneration of their dead. For others it was a way to make politics work, and to take us on to the next undoubtedly problematic item on the agenda.
I am not surprised, but deeply disappointed, that when people were dying last year, none of the Members who asked for this emergency debate cared enough about seven dead people to ask for the recall of the Assembly.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I do not think that we are in a crisis. However, I take a different view from all the Members who have spoken so far. I think that none of the Members in this Chamber understand the importance of symbols. Not only in this country, but in many other countries, symbols represent ethnic and political identity. Indeed, wars have been fought over them. It would be hypocritical of Members to go out into the communities and expect people to resolve their differences over symbols, if they cannot resolve them in this Assembly. That was what the Commission was asked to do.
The Commission was asked to resolve the dilemma of what happens in November and what might happen at Easter. Eileen Bell was put in a very difficult position. Let the record show — before anyone talks any further about those parties that could have done something about taking their votes away — that there was an opportunity for them to give their votes to another party. They could have done that before this decision was made. I understand — and the Member is not here — that Roger Hutchinson has done that. He has taken his vote from one party and given it to the DUP.

Mr Robert McCartney: Two parties.

Prof Monica McWilliams: No other party has actually done that. As Bob McCartney says, there may be some confusion at times about how Roger Hutchinson uses his vote.
Let the record show that we might not be having this debate if those Members who had the opportunity to do so had taken their votes, blocked them, moved them and allowed another party to use their votes instead.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Prof Monica McWilliams: Mr Wells wants me to give way. As the mover of the motion, you will have an opportunity to respond at the end of the debate. I say to you that I found —

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will speak through the Chair.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I found Mr Wells’s remarks very intimidatory. He asked another Member to go into the shipyard and ask people how they would like to be represented. He should know that we have had debates in this Chamber about jobs in that shipyard. Those jobs do not belong to Protestants or Catholics; they are jobs for this community. Mr Wells should be ashamed of himself for, in another debate, asking people to go into a workplace and find out how they would like to be represented. We have legislation in this country about that. Perhaps he would also like to address that in his summing-up.
People are here because they have been given a mandate to come here. I too, take exception to some of Mr Ervine’s remarks, but what he no doubt is pointing to is the fact that this was a dirty, rotten war. In that dirty, rotten war people fought over how they wanted to be represented. If we are to move on, those are the remarks that we should reflect on. We should understand now how far we have come, given that we are even discussing this issue in the first place.
Mrs Bell has my total support. If she did anything, she operated in the most democratic way that I have seen to date. She actually sent a memorandum around those parties that she represents on the Commission and asked us to attend an emergency meeting. We all attended that meeting — the parties that were represented at the meeting are named — and we debated a number of options. The option of selling the Easter lily was opposed at this stage. The National Graves Association is not a charity. Charities have permission to sell their products in the Assembly. That being the case, the next option was a display of lilies. That was the option that those four parties agreed, and Mrs Bell went to that meeting of the Commission and put that consensus and compromise forward. That is what won the day, and that is what will still win the day when this debate is over.

Mr Robert McCartney: I thought that in a fairly lengthy career at the Bar I had heard every possible form of hypocrisy, cant and dissimulation, but this debate really takes the biscuit. How anyone in their right mind can conceivably say that the Easter lily, as the Sinn Féin representative described it, is not a symbol of Republicanism in all its forms, both democratic and violent, is beyond me. For someone to say, as Mr Neeson attempted to say, that the Easter lily is a religious symbol supervening all other symbols at Easter, is rank nonsense in the context of this debate.
There is no doubt that the SDLP shares many of the political and irredentist objectives of Sinn Féin. I am sure that for many of its members, for private, political and electoral purposes, the Easter lily is just as much a symbol of their hopes for a united Ireland as it is for Sinn Féin. One can therefore understand the view that they take upon it. However, for anyone to suggest for a moment that a proposal that Easter lilies be displayed within this Building was not tantamount to the gravest provocation to those whose relatives, friends and political colleagues have been mutilated and murdered by the people who hold that Easter lily as a symbol is rank hypocrisy.
What this debate has enabled me and, I hope, the public to see is the democratic values of some of those who pontificate in this Chamber, who take a lofty attitude far above the likes of those who have a clear party affiliation. I refer to Mr Ervine, who unfortunately, while claiming to be a democrat, while constantly posturing in the media and speaking on the radio about his credentials, actually comes here — and for once I am in total agreement with the intervention made by Sinn Féin — and suggests that he regrets that he was not more successful when wearing his terrorist hat in removing more human beings from the face of this earth. That is something that everyone here should view with grave disquiet.
I am totally and utterly opposed to the activities, views and political aspirations of Sinn Féin, but I will never ever for one moment countenance that its members be dealt with other than in accordance with the rule of law, because I am a democrat. In this Chamber I have condemned violence, from whatever source it emanates, and the patronising, lofty, holier-than-thou attitude taken by some.
All this trouble stems from the fact that a symbol of violent Republicanism — a symbol adored and adorned by those who have committed the most brutal acts of terrorism and violence — is to be displayed in a building allegedly dedicated to the democratic process and the observation of the rule of law. I have heard much about the inclusiveness of this process and that it is a healing process — I heard that today from Mr McGrady on the radio — but nothing could be more calculated to provoke, to divide and to re-emphasise sectarian differences than this proposal.
In conclusion, had the proposal been to fill those vases on 01 July with orange lilies, which, like the Easter lily, have a specific political connotation, I would have objected to that. Anyone who endeavours to equate the poppy with either of those symbols is desecrating, misjudging and misrepresenting the purpose of the poppy.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Critics of my Colleague Mr Wells have said that this is a trivial matter. For such a trivial matter, I am amazed at their turnout today. We have almost a full turnout from the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and a very high turnout from the Alliance Party and the other minor parties. I am absolutely amazed by their turnout. Indeed, most of the Galleries are also packed — some of them, I am sure, in support of the parties who say that this is a trivial matter.
To all the members of the SDLP, Sinn Féin, and the Alliance Party who are here, the question should be put as to where they were last week when this Assembly was taking very important votes and making very important decisions on agriculture and the economy. Their Benches were empty last week, but on a trivial matter they do take the time to turn up. Who is electioneering today? That is the question that should be asked.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Donovan McClelland] in the Chair)
A lot of people, not only in this Assembly but across Northern Ireland, will be disgusted by the remarks of Mr Ervine. He takes on a new label today as "Easter lily-livered" Ervine. Mr "Easter lily" Ervine, who today admitted that he is a failed terrorist — and I hope that after the next election it will be demonstrated that he is also a failed politician — came to the House to encourage actions that he claims he should have taken. That is disgraceful. This is the person that the Alliance Party wants to side with.
The Alliance Party should search its soul this morning. The deputy leader of the Alliance Party was on the radio this morning. He is not in the House today — perhaps he is down at SD Bell’s. I am not sure where he is, but he is not taking part in this debate. He should hang his head in shame, as should his party colleagues, for allowing themselves to be aligned with people who, quite clearly, are justifying generosity to terrorism. That is exactly what they are doing. His party colleague, Mrs Eileen Bell, tried to usurp the votes of other Members of this House that, quite frankly, are not her votes.
The statement by Mr Neeson, trying to in some way equate the Easter lily with Christ’s crucifixion, verges on blasphemy. It is absolute and total nonsense. No one equates that symbol with Christ’s crucifixion.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the SDLP has been hijacked by Sinn Féin —

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Mr Paisley Jnr that I am not Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I apologise for the gender mistake. I am sure you are a man — I will take your word for it. My Colleague says you are better looking than the previous Deputy Speaker, but I will make no comment.
The SDLP has been hijacked by Sinn Féin in this debate. Its members have never worn Easter lilies on other occasions. Weeks before a general election and a local government election the SDLP is too frightened to challenge Sinn Féin on this issue, to challenge the display of a symbol that is akin to the Nazi swastika. It is being used to encourage terrorism. It would be placed opposite a plaque that pays homage and respect to Edgar Graham and Sir Norman Stronge. That is what they are equating this with. But it is not equal to that, and it never will be. If Members of the House vote against the motion that has been brought by my Colleague, they will not only do themselves a disservice, but also do Ulster’s honoured dead the gravest disservice.

Mr Alan McFarland: This is a divisive and unnecessary debate. The Belfast Agreement was supposed to draw a line under the past 30 years and allow us to move on. Sinn Féin, however, is acting against the ethos of the agreement. It is conducting a form of cultural warfare in place of its former occupation. We saw that in the run-up to the commemoration of the hunger strikes; we saw it yesterday when a plaque was unveiled in Enniskillen of all places, an extremely insensitive thing to do. It is hyping the tension leading to an election, and Easter lilies are part of that cultural warfare campaign.
It is accepted that Easter lilies and orange lilies are cultural symbols. The poppy is not. The poppy is not only a national symbol; it is an international symbol recognised across the world as a commemoration of those who made the supreme sacrifice in two world wars. These issues should not be linked.
Sinn Féin needs to appreciate that actions such as this damage attempts that are being made to bring us out of the past 30 years and damage the confidence that communities are trying to build.
I would like to comment briefly on the voting system. I was involved in the Standing Orders Committee where discussions took place on how the Commission should operate. As Members will know, a system was only recently devised that everyone was completely happy with. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that it is based on the number of Members who were here on the first day. However, I find it confusing. I would welcome Mrs Bell’s explaining how she thought she had all the votes that she had in her pocket. The Commission has traditionally operated a system whereby decisions are taken on a consensual basis. I do not know how we arrived at a position where votes were cast for this on behalf of Members who have indicated clearly today that they were not in favour of a floral display of Easter lilies. Mrs Bell should address this matter.
We are tearing ourselves apart. It is unfortunate that we have had to have this unnecessary debate in the lead-up to an election.

Mr John Fee: I wish to set straight something that Mr Wells said at the outset. He said that we were here because the Assembly Commission could not meet, as it could not get a quorum. I point out to him that I wrote to the Clerk to say that, having cancelled all my meetings for that day and rearranged a flight home from Brussels where we were discussing foot-and-mouth disease, by 5.00 pm on Thursday evening I could not ascertain whether the meeting was to be at 11.00 am or 1.00 pm the following day or which other Members would be attending. I could not, therefore, consult all my Colleagues, nor had I the luxury of reallocating my votes to anybody else. It was impossible for me to attend.
However, I fully understand why we are here. I do believe that this is a very important issue. [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Fee: It goes to the very heart of how we treat each other in this institution and the example we give to our communities of how society should treat its members. This is about inclusion. It is about including all sections of the community. It is about recognising the symbols that are dear and important to all sections of the community. It is not simply about recognising the middle ground; it is about recognising and including as far as is possible those people who may have felt marginalised or alienated in the past. It is an attempt to recognise everybody’s place in the new democratic society in which we live.
The Assembly Commission, in its decision, was extremely conscious of the fact that it was not suggesting equivalence — and I certainly would not suggest it — between the lily and the poppy, or indeed any other symbol. They are two unique symbols that mean something entirely different and are of extraordinarily potent emotional significance to different sections of the community in which they are held in high regard and esteem.
The Assembly Commission, in the absence of any clear direction, came up with what was very much a compromise. We did not accept, under the circumstances, that the National Graves Association should be involved or that the symbol should be sold in the building. We did accept that the Easter lily has a greater significance than that which the Republican movement has attached to it. As in the past, when the Assembly adopted the flax flower, when poppies for very important reasons were available here in November, we felt that a benign floral symbol was a sufficient compromise.
In my view, this is about putting up with things that we do not necessarily like. This very building is anathema to a large section of my community, but we put up with it. To many people who visit this building, the statues of Carson and Craigavon and other symbols are anathema, but we ask them to put up with them — they are part of our history.
The Assembly has debated the Union flag on many occasions. The Assembly Commission agreed that in the absence of any clear direction we would have to put up with the fact that it flies over this Building on designated days. We have also had a commemoration of the bicentenary of the Act of Union, and we have asked Members and visitors to put up with that. In divisive circumstances, the Assembly Commission’s only option is to try to find a compromise we can all put up with. I feel that we achieved that in this case, and we are asking the Assembly to put up with that decision.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am sorry that the phrase "cultural aggravation" was used. Many of us will remember — or perhaps not — Leading Seaman Magennis, the only man from this part of this island to receive a VC in the second world war.
For years, a Unionist-controlled council in the city hall refused to recognise the heroism of that man. It made cultural aggravation out of the poppy in relation to him.
This debate is not about the Easter lily. It is about the continuing struggle in Unionism between those on the Unionist side of the House that support the inclusive principles of the Good Friday Agreement and those on the Unionist side who want to return to the negative and politically suicidal philosophy of a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.
This debate is about those on the Unionist side who want to return to the political and religious fundamentalism that has bedevilled this society since partition. This debate is about DUP triumphalism, DUP sectarianism and DUP racism. I intervened during David Ervine’s contribution, but I understand what he was saying. There are those on the DUP side of the House who have engaged in violence and sabre-rattling and who have attempted to encourage young Protestants — young Loyalists — to get involved in violence. They did not do the fighting — and I understand where David Ervine is coming from in that regard — yet they sit in this House and fancy dress themselves with debates on an Easter lily.
Whatever the outcome of this futile, negative debate, and regardless of the politically confusing coalition of pro- and anti-agreement Unionists voting against the display of the Easter lily in this Building — a Building from which Nationalists, Republicans and their traditions have been excluded, a Building that is awash with negative cultural traditions, a Building in which attempts have been made to exclude Catholics and Nationalists from participating in the politics of this part of Ireland — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Kelly: Whatever the outcome and regardless of the negative political forces that we have here today, one thing is certain —

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Bobby Sands would not be in here today.

Mr John Kelly: Bobby Sands was a courageous man. There is one thing that cannot be negated — [Interruption] Am I going to get silence, A LeasCheann Comhairle?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Please continue, Mr Kelly.

Mr John Kelly: One thing is certain: the transition in this part of Ireland to the equality and the parity of esteem contained in the Good Friday Agreement is irreversible. The transition to respect for the cultural and religious traditions of those who live in this part of Ireland and who by race and conviction are part of a concept of a sovereign Irish nation is irreversible. It cannot be turned back by any bogus attempt by the DUP and their Colleagues — [Interruption] — Yes, and Billy Wright —

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Are you in control of the meeting, or are the people across the Chamber in control? I cannot hear the debate.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order. I will attempt to maintain order, but I cannot guarantee — [Interruption]

Mr Alex Maskey: I am asking you for a response.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Maskey, I am speaking.

Mr Alex Maskey: So is everyone else.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Kelly: Mr Maskey has a point.
This text appeared on a poster in 1925:
"The Easter Lily is the NATIONAL EMBLEM
The Easter Lily represents the NORTH and SOUTH united in an expression of appreciation of the principles for which the men of Easter Week gave up their lives.
The Easter Lily is an emblem of Hope and Confidence in the ultimate realisation of every Irishman’s dream, ‘Ireland free from the centre to the Sea’."
[Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member has a right to be heard.
12.00

Mr John Kelly: A LeasCheann Comhairle, are we going to have order in the House, or is this rabble —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Kelly, I am giving you an opportunity to continue. Please do so.

Mr John Kelly: Throughout the debate we have not had order from the DUP rabble on that side of the House.

Mr Peter Weir: Listening to the last Member, one wondered for a moment if one was listening to a speech in the Assembly or an oration at Milltown.
Some Members have said that this is not the most important issue facing NorthernIreland, and I agree. On the third anniversary of the Belfast Agreement there has still been no decommissioning; we have seen the destruction of the RUC; there are terrorists in Government; the criminal justice system has been damaged; and paramilitaries have increasing control of our society. All those issues are more important than the motion that is before us today. However, those issues, together with a wide range of economic and social issues, are dealt with in the day-to-day business of the Assembly. This issue is timely because of the approach of Good Friday, and it is important for a number of reasons.
First, today’s debate highlights the weakness of the Assembly’s voting system. Mention has already been made of the votes in the Assembly Commission, but there is also the absurd sectarian system by which, whether this motion passes by one vote or 101votes, it will be negatived simply because Nationalists are voting against it. At the time of the referendum Unionists were told that their great prize was to get power back into their own hands, yet today we find that we cannot even pass a motion dealing with Easter lilies because of the system.
Secondly, a number of parties have shown their true colours today. The SDLP is rushing headlong after Sinn Féin in the pursuit of electoral success. The Alliance Party and the NorthernIreland Women’s Coalition have, unfortunately, shown their usual true colours of having greater sympathy for the Nationalist cause. The PUP has shown that its true bedfellows are Sinn Féin/IRA.
DavidErvine said earlier that he regretted not having been more successful. Those were not just off-the-cuff remarks. Last night MrErvine said on the radio that MrWells and the supporters of this motion, unlike him and others, had not made Republicans cower behind steel doors. It is not my ambition in life to make anyone cower behind steel doors. I am a democrat, Sir. It ill behoves any Member of the Assembly to make that sort of boast —

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member will please direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr Peter Weir: On my third point, I find myself very much at odds with MrNeeson. The Easter lily has been used for a political purpose, and it has been used to hijack the true meaning of Easter. That is something that borders on the blasphemous. Republicans have politicised Easter. We see at one extreme the theories of Patrick Pearse — the blood sacrifice — which is a clear-cut example of blasphemy. However, to use any symbol connected with Easter for a political purpose is to deprecate the meaning of Easter and to verge on blasphemy.
Finally, the key point is not what individuals take as their view; everyone is entitled to take whatever action they want. Members opposite are wearing what appears to be a BluePeter-type badge of a cardboard cut-out nature. If they want to wear some sort of green-and-white badge then that is a matter for them, but what we are debating today is the role of the Assembly.
I thought the problem with the notion of parity of esteem was that it placed my British citizenship on a par with an aspiration towards a united Ireland, thus denying the principle of consent; but it is far worse than that. Today we are placing the Easter lily, which is a symbol that has been associated with violent Republicanism, alongside the symbols that commemorate the sacrifice of all people, Catholic and Protestant, in the face of fascism. We are equating the soldiers who made that sacrifice with cowards who cowered and killed in a most despicable way, not just in the past 30years but throughout this century, in the name of Irish Republicanism.
Esteem for terrorists is being sought today. That is utterly unacceptable and why this motion needs to be passed. A clear signal needs to be sent that the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland — whether Protestant or Catholic — simply will not put up with terrorists hijacking Easter for their benefit.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that as I was named I have a right of reply?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I did not hear the last part of your sentence.

Mr David Ervine: I am asking you to confirm that as I was named and, one could argue, attacked in MrWeir’s speech, I will be entitled to a right of reply.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I understand that you will be entitled to reply after the vote.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us when the new rule was made that says that a person can reply to an attack after the vote? I understood that a Member had a right to reply if some personal matter was mentioned. In free debate anywhere, in any House, there would be no such thing as a right of reply after the vote is taken. I want to know on what authority you say that.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am taking advice on that. I understand that when a personal attack is made on a Member, he is given an opportunity to refute it after the vote. If I am incorrect, I will discuss the matter with the Speaker’s Office and inform the Assembly accordingly.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. MrJKelly named DrPaisley, DrMcCrea, MrPRobinson and me in some way during his speech and accused us of a number of illegal activities. I assume that we will all be given the right to make a personal statement at the conclusion of this debate.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is correct.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not recall naming any individual. On a further point, will A LeasCheann Comhairle clarify that MrErvine will be able to rebut what has been said after the vote or after the debate?

Mr Donovan McClelland: After the vote.

Mr Norman Boyd: I support the motion and congratulate the 30 signatories. The display of Republican triumphalism in the Building is deliberately provocative to the vast majority in Northern Ireland. It is disgusting that there are those in the Assembly who continue to glorify Republican terrorists, and it is regrettable that there are puppets of Sinn Féin/IRA.
Very serious questions must be answered. It is disgraceful that people such as SeamusClose should trivialise the hurt of the Unionist community at Republican terrorists being glorified. For SeamusClose to say on the radio this morning that this is a meaningless debate about flower arranging was mischievous and pathetic when his party Colleague, EileenBell, appears to have abused the voting system. Has SeamusClose conveniently forgotten that he told us that the Belfast Agreement would provide open, transparent Government? Suddenly MrClose and the Alliance Party are concerned about the cost of the Assembly and his holidays being cut short.
I would also correct EddieMcGrady, who, also on the radio this morning, said that every party is represented on the Assembly Commission. EddieMcGrady should check his facts. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party is not represented, and I wrote to the Alliance Party Whip months ago, instructing him not to use our party’s votes on any occasion.
I want an answer today about the role Assembly Member Eileen Bell played in the vote last week and on previous occasions in the Assembly Commission. We have debated for one and a half hours, and there has still been no clarification on the voting by the Commission. Did EileenBell use the three Northern Ireland Unionist Party votes in favour of the display of Easter lilies, in spite of clear, written instructions to the contrary? Has EileenBell used the Northern Ireland Unionist Party’s votes on previous occasions on any issue, in spite of clear, written instructions to the contrary? Did she use a block vote of 16, or did she not? If she did, what action will be taken to remove EileenBell from that position? Is EileenBell being honest in this matter? She clearly stated on BBC’s ‘Talkback’ last week that she did not use our party’s votes. Is she stating one thing in public and doing the opposite in private?
It should also be noted that the so-called parties of the centre — the Alliance Party and the Women’s Coalition — are once again supporting Sinn Féin/IRA, as they regularly do.
It is a wonder that they are not wearing their green ribbons and the insulting lily in the Chamber today. The Unionist family will also view with dismay — but hardly any surprise — the actions of the Progressive Unionist Party which, contrary to the wishes of most of its members and supporters, is endorsing this display of Republican triumphalism.
Today we see the farce that is the Belfast Agreement, where a clear majority in the Assembly oppose the display of Republican triumphalism, yet the decision of five people cannot be overturned. I agree with the Members who described Mr Sean "Naive" Neeson’s remark that the Easter lily is a symbol of Our Lord’s crucifixion as nothing short of blasphemy. It is an absolute disgrace for those in the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Women’s Coalition and the PUP to equate the poppy, which represents the fallen — both Protestant and Roman Catholic — in two world wars, with a symbol representing IRA terrorists.
It is clear that the Belfast Agreement offers nothing for Unionists and must be scrapped. It is rejected by the vast majority of Unionists who view it as an appeasement to the pan-Nationalist front, and its collapse is inevitable. I support the motion.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I am surprised to hear some people say that today’s debate is frivolous, expensive or foolish. However, when I listened to the comments of Alban Maginness I was reminded of a warning I got as a young child to "Never lay your wits to the witless." I am here to record before the Assembly the feelings of people in West Tyrone. I want to speak up on behalf of the 97 families who had members murdered by those who wear the symbols of lily-white cowardice.

Mr John Kelly: Does that include Patsy Kelly?

Mr Oliver Gibson: That includes anyone who was murdered by cowards. I want to remember my schoolmaster colleague Ivan Anderson, who was murdered on his way home from work. I want to remember the schoolmaster who died a lingering death on a trolley, and who had taught my children and my neighbours’ children. I want to remember my colleague, then headmaster of Castlederg High School, whom they attempted to murder on his way to work. I want to remember my neighbour and my brother, whose lorry was riddled with 49 Armalite bullets on its way to the cattle mart in Dungannon. They survived only by the grace of God, but they have since departed this life. I want to remember the colleagues of my own platoon who served with me in the defence of the community. I am proud to record that members of that platoon were decent Roman Catholics.
I want to remind those here today that wearers of lily-white lilies of cowardice murdered more Roman Catholics than Protestants in the bombing of Omagh on 15 August 1998. Bear in mind that when they wear their lily-whites of cowardice they are not just insulting the blood corpuscles of respectability and tributes to everything decent and moral, but they are insulting their own religious colleagues whom they have slaughtered. Bear in mind that their own party leader ordered the suicide of 10 of their own men by hunger strike. That is what the lily symbolises. However, it symbolises much more than that. That bowl outside in the Hall embodies everything that is symbolised in the Belfast Agreement.
I was challenged about this debate because one can become very personal and emotional. However, I then thought of my grandfather and other generations long gone. They too had to negotiate and make critical decisions.
My ancient ancestor, Bartholomew Gibson of Roscommon, had to make a decision 313 years ago. He had to decide whether he would stand for democracy, constitutional monarchy and respect for life, freedom, equality and justice or negotiate and compromise with those who wanted autocracy and dictatorship and to tramp everyone else’s thoughts and beliefs underneath their feet. He made a critical decision. It was said in Enniskillen "We stand upon our guard. We resolve by the blessing of God to face our danger."

Mr Donovan McClelland: Your time is up. Many Members wish to speak.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I want to conclude more simply. The reply is still "No Surrender."

Mr Billy Armstrong: I support the motion. The placing of Easter lilies in Stormont reminds me forcefully of the continuance of the terrorist armed struggle in this country. I am reminded in particular of the Easter Rising in 1916, which left large parts of Dublin in ruins, and of events that have taken place all over Ireland then and many times since.
I do not want to be reminded of that every time I walk through the Great Hall. Surely we all want to forget the struggles and hate of the past as we move forward? This is a deliberate action by persons in this House, a display of their terrorist culture.
A fresh start is needed. Everyone should acknowledge the need for sensitivity with symbols. In an era of bridge-building at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this is totally out of keeping and divisive, and it contradicts the precepts of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Belfast Agreement also safeguards equality and opportunity. In paragraph 5, it says
"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
We have people in the House who have supported terrorist activities. Some still espouse symbols of terrorist organisations and are prominent here.
Apart from its distinctive appearance, this plant has poisonous characteristics. Researchers say that the lily is poisonous to cats and dogs. The toxic contents can cause kidney damage to animals, who then require immediate veterinary attention. Bearing in mind the problems being experienced by our animal population through foot-and- mouth disease and BSE, we should not encourage the use of anything that could bring suffering or stress to any person or animal.
Easter lilies can be toxic when eaten by a cat, causing kidney failure, vomiting, loss of appetite, depression and death. Is that the sort of atmosphere that we want to work in? My research also shows that unlike the shamrock the Easter lily is not a native Irish plant. It comes from the Ryukyu Islands, south of Japan, and has no particular Irish connection.
This poisonous plant will cause more division in the Assembly than anything else. Who would want to be party to the placing of such a toxic plant in an accessible place such as Stormont? Anyone in his right mind would not want to introduce such a poisonous plant, either in Parliament Buildings or elsewhere. The Easter lily has no place here — it is a symbol of Republicanism.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I support the Commission’s efforts to adopt an inclusive approach to the symbols on display in the building. Unfortunately, too many people have lost their lives as a result of either state or paramilitary violence. We must respect the views of those who have lost family members on what they consider to be the most appropriate way of remembering their dead. Unfortunately, the debate has been narrow and has focused on those who choose either the poppy or the lily as the appropriate way in which to honour those who have died.
However, those are not the only views; many others who have lost family members have entirely different opinions on how they should be commemorated. For them, flags and flowers have been monopolised and desecrated and made to represent something other than was intended. The Union Jack, as we know, is based on three Christian crosses. It may symbolise something positive, but history tells us that it has sometimes been used, or abused, to represent everything but Christianity or a coming together. On the other hand, the Easter lily, based on the colours orange and green, should symbolise the interdependency and coming together of our diverse peoples. Sadly, it has taken on a meaning that has more to do with physical force and coercion than with promoting peace and partnership. That is a matter of regret.
Many families do not believe that their loved ones should be commemorated by symbols that give rise to division. Therefore, a much greater challenge facing us is the need to reach agreement on a common symbol to commemorate all those who have lost their lives due to violence.
There are some reference points that we can consider. Let me remind Members of the report by the Northern Ireland Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, in April 1998. It said that gorse, a plant common in the countryside, which flowers in spring, could be a common symbol to commemorate all of the victims of violence here. In the Republic of Ireland, a victims’ commission considered the views of families who had suffered from all over Ireland and ended up recommending a common symbol. It suggested that the oak leaf be considered. As most people here will know, especially those from around Derry, the oak leaf is associated with St Columcille.
I regret that we have had an acrimonious and divisive debate on such a sensitive issue. I hope that we will quickly turn our attention to the greater problem. We must recognise and respect the suffering of all families who have lost brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers and other family members and reach agreement over how we might commemorate them all.

Mr Jim Wells: The one thing that has emerged from the debate is that the Easter lily is not a minor issue. The telephone line from Downpatrick to Crossmaglen must have been down last night because the Chief Whip of the SDLP was unable to ring Mr Fee to tell him that it is a minor issue.
Mr Fee let the cat out of the bag when he said "Yes, this is a very important issue." Everyone knows exactly why it is important. That is why there are so many people here today and why there is so much press interest. I have never done so many interviews on one subject in all my political career.
The public are aware what is going on — unlike Mr Maskey, who appeared in here this morning in his new suit, looked around, realised that everyone else was wearing lilies and had to get one photocopied. He arrived in here without his lily. He is the only one in Northern Ireland who is not aware of the significance of Easter lilies.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Did he come in his own car?

Mr Jim Wells: No, he came courtesy of the disability living allowance.
The most telling silence here this morning was from Mrs Eileen Bell, the person mainly responsible for this decision. Such was her confidence in the decision that she made in the Assembly Commission, that she did not stand up to defend herself. She did not stand up to be questioned on the subject.
The point that she did not deny, in any of her interventions, was that there were express instructions issued that she was not permitted to use the Unionist votes to push through the decision to allow the display of lilies. That is the only reason that we are here this morning. All the arguments that have been made by the opposition fall flat on their face. There was an opportunity for Mrs Bell to speak.
If Mrs Bell was confident of how she used her votes in the Commission, when a second meeting was called, she could have come forward and justified her decision to that meeting. However, she realised that if that meeting were called, myself and Rev Robert Coulter would have been able to show quite clearly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is not consent from the Unionist community, as represented in the Assembly, for this decision.
We are told that we have been sold an agreement which says that the consent of the Unionist and Nationalist communities must be obtained. There is not a shred of consent anywhere in the Unionist community for this decision.
Mr McGrady, Mr Ervine and others said that this is not the message that they are getting. No doubt, the areas in which they move —

Rev William McCrea: I thank my hon Friend for giving way. Can he tell me why, if this was regarded by Mr McGrady as a minor issue, 22 members of the SDLP signed a petition of concern? Also, why did the SDLP have to put 22 names on it, while Sinn Féin put only four?

Mr Jim Wells: Many ordinary people in the Province will be extremely shocked at the way in which the SDLP has grovelled at the feet of Sinn Féin on this issue. The reason for it is abundantly clear. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black — Mr Maginness suggested that perhaps there was some electioneering taking place. I know my television is broken down when he is not on it, electioneering and making party political broadcasts, along with Mr Dallat.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please limit your remarks to the subject of the debate.

Mr Jim Wells: The reality is that, such was their enthusiasm to grovel to Sinn Féin, that 22 SDLP Members rushed up to Stormont to sign their petition of concern. They did the dirty work for Sinn Féin on this occasion. However, the real culprit, and the reason why we are here this morning, is the so-called middle ground party, the Alliance Party. It seeks to speak for both the Unionist and the Nationalist community, yet it represents just 2·5% of the electorate. It took it upon itself to cast its 16 votes — as all the minutes indicate — in favour of the display of these emblems.
The Alliance Party was the first to admit that when it supported a Sinn Féin Mayor for Belfast it caused itself enormous harm electorally. I can tell them that they ain’t seen nothing yet, when this gets out to the public. Mrs Bell, I am giving you the opportunity to defend yourself, and you have not taken it.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please direct your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Jim Wells: I want to return to a more serious issue. There are 2,800 innocent people in their graves today who have been put there by those that wear the Easter lily. The money that is collected by the sale of the Easter lilies is used to honour the people that have tortured this community for 30 years.
No one connected to the families of any of those people is anything but aghast that this is happening. Could those 2,800 people ever have known that in Stormont, of all places, the people who put them in their graves would be honoured through the display of Easter lilies? Would they ever have thought that that was possible? That is what we are voting for today. It does not have consent.
I call on the Alliance Party to apologise to the decent people of this Province for getting us into this situation. Votes were abused, Members were not consulted and decisions were taken behind closed doors without the consent of the parties whose votes were being used. Clearly, there has been abuse. There has been abuse throughout the entire system. This decision, if it is allowed to go ahead, will be a gross insult to the innocent people of this Province who have been murdered by the IRA.
There is no equivalence with the poppy. I am glad that Members, particularly from other parties, have taken the opportunity to explain the fundamental difference between the symbolic natures of the poppy and of the Easter lily. The only equivalent to the Easter lily would be some emblem on behalf of Loyalist Prisoners’ Aid, or some similar organisation. We, as a party, would not support that and we are certainly not supporting this.
I come back to this question: is the Commission prepared to fly in the face of the decision of the House, or will it honour that decision? Let democracy prevail. Let us see what the House decides this afternoon. Any proposal that honours those dead who have lain in ditches and blown up totally innocent people because they were Protestants — or because they were Catholics — has no support from any decent person in this Province.

Mr Peter Robinson: I assure my Colleague that that person in the Chamber — or who was in the Chamber — who purports to represent Unionism, but who has supported the commemoration of the Easter rebellion through the display of lilies, does not represent the Unionists of East Belfast. They do not want to be represented by "Easter lily Ervine".

Mr Jim Wells: I have long since stopped including Mr Ervine and Mr Hutchinson in the term "Unionism". I am talking about true Unionists with true, traditional Unionist values. In conclusion, if we approve the display of Easter lilies in the House, we insult the names of the brave dead of this province, and the people of Northern Ireland will not forgive those responsible for it.
Question put.
The Assembly divided (cross-community vote): Ayes 48; Noes 38.
Ayes
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Nationalist
Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
David Ervine.
Other
Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Sean Neeson.
Total Votes 86 Total Ayes 48 ( 55.8%) Nationalist Votes 32 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0.0%) Unionist Votes 49 Unionist Ayes 48 ( 98.0%)
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you accept that almost 56% of Members voted for this motion?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.

Mr Alan McFarland: Members are becoming increasingly confused about whether or not they can reply when they are referred to by name in a contribution. The situation has become worse and worse, and today it has gone bananas. We will now have 25 people jumping up and demanding five or 10minutes each to reply. I ask you to look at this very seriously. We must have a system to prevent a bunfight after every debate.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I thank MrMcFarland for his point of order. If he so wishes, I will read from the appropriate part of Erskine May. If not, I will advise all Members of what the ruling is.. This is not, as I understand it, contained in the Assembly’s Standing Orders, and I will use Erskine May as the basis for the decision.

Mr Robert McCartney: In another place it is unprecedented for Members who are mentioned in another Member’s speech to demand in a debate a right of reply. If that were permitted, the business of the House — and of this Assembly —would be choked up and obstructed. I wish to confirm what Maj McFarland has said that a definitive ruling — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Mr McCartney is correct. What he has said follows closely my understanding of Erskine May. The matter is causing a great deal of confusion in the House, and I will ensure that it is clarified for all Members.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: With all due respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to say that Members were confused about the way you put your ruling.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. I cannot hear Dr Paisley.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Deputy Speaker, what you said was that it would have to be after the debate. It would be so far after the debate that the aggrieved Member would have to write out a statement. That statement would have to be ruled to be in order by the Speaker, and it would have to be read out in the very words that the Member had submitted to the Speaker. There would be no confusion if that were rigidly adhered to.
However, in a debate where there is cut and thrust, the only time that a Member can make a personal statement is if they have been accused by an opponent of something that is outside the law. That is the only time that a Member can intervene and say "No." In today’s debate Mr Wells gave Mrs Bell an opportunity to stand up and explain her situation, but she did not do that. Therefore, she does not have much to worry about, even though she did collogue earlier with Gerry Adams and others on his Bench.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I take on board what Dr Paisley has said. However, I have to say that I sought advice this morning about what I should do. I did not particularly want to take part in the debate, because I knew what would happen, but I did want to comment on the many inaccurate statements that have been made in relation to the voting procedure. I was told at that stage that if I handed in a statement I would be allowed to make a statement on the facts after the vote had been taken. I have now been told — and I accept the Deputy Speaker’s decision — that that cannot be done. I am sorry that my reputation has been sullied by that, and I want this matter cleared up. Can the situation be cleared as soon as possible so that I can speak at the next available opportunity?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mrs Bell, I understand from speaking to my advisers that you may have received conflicting advice. It is for that reason, and for that reason only, that I am going to allow you to make your statement.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It may help Mrs Bell if, in making her statement, she could provide the House with the one vital component that has been missing from the debate. Was she voting for the Alliance Party, the Women’s Coalition, Mr Denis Watson and the PUP? The Assembly needs to know on whose behalf she was voting.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Mr Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that Mrs Eileen Bell submitted a text before the debate took place and, therefore, before she was attacked? Is that what happened? Will you confirm when you received the text of her statement?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I received the text of Mrs Bell’s statement after the debate whilst Members were in the process of voting.

Mr Peter Robinson: Every decision taken by the Chair becomes a precedent for future occasions. I wish to express my concern that a Member who had an opportunity to express her views throughout the debate, and declined to do so, should be allowed a special set of circumstances in which to do so without other Members being allowed to reply.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Robinson is quite right. As I understand it, MrsBell is not responding to the debate; she is responding to an accusation. I am setting a precedent on this occasion because I understand that Mrs Bell has been given conflicting advice.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right — I am not going to comment on the debate. MrWells, MrMcFarland and others have made a number of allegations about the voting procedure. It has been said that I cast votes on behalf of a group that had made it clear to me that no Member from the Alliance Party was entitled to vote on its behalf. MrWells should have said that I acknowledged that at the time. I also acknowledged that I was unable to get in touch with MrMcCartney, and that I did not wish to cast votes for either the NIUP or MrMcCartney. When I subsequently got in touch with MrMcCartney, he confirmed that he did not want his vote to go either way.
It was also said that another group was not properly consulted and subsequently issued a press release to denounce my amendment. I convened a meeting of the Alliance Party, the PUP and the NorthernIreland Women’s Coalition. The UUAP was represented by its Leader. I agreed the substance of my amendments with other parties at that meeting. Therefore, that was the amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A vital part of the issue is the fact that Mrs Bell did not turn up to a meeting of the Commission at which the matter could have been put right. She has given no explanation for that at all. Why did she arrange a meeting and then boycott it?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I cannot allow any cross- examinination. That is not a point of order.
Adjourned at 12.57 pm.